§Why CasetextPricing

Nichia Corporation v. VIZIO, Inc.

MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW

42 Cited authorities

  1. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

    572 U.S. 898 (2014)   Cited 1,345 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

  2. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.

    136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016)   Cited 493 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 284 " ‘commits the determination’ whether enhanced damages are appropriate ‘to the discretion of the district court’ "

  3. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,153 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc.

    572 U.S. 915 (2014)   Cited 210 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because a "method patent ... is not infringed unless all the steps are carried out," a competitor did not induce direct infringement of a method patent merely by "carr[ying] out some steps constituting a method patent and encourag[ing] others to carry out the remaining steps"

  5. Lucent Technologies v. Gateway

    580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 741 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "we see little evidentiary basis under Georgia-Pacific" for the damages award

  6. WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology

    184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 536 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court correctly determined structure was "an algorithm executed by a computer," but "erred by failing to limit the claim to the algorithm disclosed in the specification"

  7. Laserdynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.

    694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 326 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding the settlement license agreement in question had "very little relation to demonstrated economic demand for the patented technology, and its probative value is greatly outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury"; therefore, concluding the district court had abused its discretion in admitting the settlement agreement into evidence

  8. Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.

    767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 294 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the entire market value rule applies if the patentee establishes that its "patented technology drove demand for the entire product."

  9. Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.

    594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 298 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of royalty rates from licenses without a relationship to the claimed invention could not form the basis of a reasonable royalty calculation

  10. WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.

    829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 225 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a nexus can be presumed when the asserted objective indicia is tied to a specific product and the product is the invention claimed in the patent

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,277 times   1023 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  12. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,055 times   447 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  13. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,040 times   1050 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  14. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,937 times   944 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  15. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,400 times   2189 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  16. Section 285 - Attorney fees

    35 U.S.C. § 285   Cited 3,199 times   476 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases

  17. Section 284 - Damages

    35 U.S.C. § 284   Cited 2,072 times   194 Legal Analyses
    Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"

  18. Section 295 - Presumption: Product made by patented process

    35 U.S.C. § 295   Cited 34 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Addressing "product made by patented process."